Civil Harassment Restraining Order vs. Domestic Violence Restraining Order: Key Differences

California has four civil restraining order tracks. Two of them, the Domestic Violence Restraining Order and the Civil Harassment Restraining Order, are the most commonly issued. People searching for guidance often do not know which type applies to their situation or what the difference means for outcomes. This article walks through every meaningful difference.

Which statute applies and to whom?

DVRO — Family Code §6300

Available between persons who have one of these relationships:

• Current or former spouse, registered domestic partner, or fiancé(e).
• Current or former cohabitant. Family Code §6209 defines cohabitant broadly to include anyone living together as members of the same household, including non-romantic situations in some circumstances.
• Person with whom the petitioner has a child.
• Current or former dating partner. Family Code §6210.
• Specified family relationships within the second degree (parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, in-law).

CHRO — Code of Civil Procedure §527.6

Available between any two people who do not qualify for a DVRO. Typical settings:

• Coworkers (where no employer is filing the order; if the employer files, it is a Workplace Violence Restraining Order under CCP §527.8).
• Roommates who are not romantically involved.
• Acquaintances and friends.
• Strangers, online harassers, casual social connections.
• Distant relatives outside the second-degree family relationship covered by DVRO.

If the relationship qualifies for both, the DVRO governs.

What is the legal standard and burden of proof?

DVRO — abuse by preponderance of evidence

The petitioner must prove abuse under Family Code §6203 by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). Abuse is defined broadly under Family Code §6320 and includes:

• Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury.
• Sexual assault.
• Placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury.
• Engaging in behavior including molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, credibly impersonating, falsely personating, harassing, telephoning, including making annoying telephone calls, destroying personal property, contacting either directly or indirectly by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace.
• Disturbing the peace was given a broad definition in In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) — covers conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.

CHRO — credible threat of violence or course of harassment by clear and convincing evidence

The petitioner must prove one of:

• A credible threat of violence. Defined in CCP §527.6(b)(2) as a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety or the safety of their family, and that serves no legitimate purpose.
• A course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the petitioner, and that serves no legitimate purpose. Defined in §527.6(b)(3) as a series of acts over a period of time evidencing a continuity of purpose.

The clear and convincing standard is higher than preponderance. The petitioner must show it is highly probable that the conduct occurred. This is intentional. The legislature did not want CHROs handed out for ordinary interpersonal disputes.

What are the differences in process and timeline?

Filing

• DVRO: form DV-100. No filing fee for the petitioner.
• CHRO: form CH-100. Filing fee unless waived using FW-001.

Temporary order (ex parte)

• DVRO: TRO available the same day under Family Code §240. Often granted on the petitioner's declaration alone.
• CHRO: TRO available the same day under CCP §527.6(d). Issued more cautiously than DVRO TROs because of the higher legal standard.

Hearing

• DVRO: Within 21 days under Family Code §242, or 25 days if good cause is shown.
• CHRO: Within 21 to 25 days under CCP §527.6(g).

Response

• DVRO: form DV-120 filed at least two court days before the hearing.
• CHRO: form CH-120 filed at least two court days before the hearing.

Duration of permanent order

• DVRO: up to five years under Family Code §6345.
• CHRO: up to five years under CCP §527.6(j), extended in 2024 by AB 887 from the previous three-year maximum.

Renewal

• DVRO: renewable for up to another five years, or permanently. Standard for renewal is whether the protected person still has a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.
• CHRO: renewable under similar standards. Renewal granted on showing of continuing reasonable concern.

What are the differences in consequences for the respondent?

Firearm surrender

• DVRO: automatic surrender required under Family Code §6389 and Penal Code §29825. Within 24 hours of being served, all firearms must be surrendered to a licensed dealer or law enforcement.
• CHRO: surrender required only if the court specifically finds that the respondent owns or possesses firearms and orders surrender. Not automatic.

Federal firearms ban

• DVRO: federal lifetime ban under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) attaches once a DVRO is issued after a hearing where the respondent had notice and opportunity to participate, regardless of whether the state ban under §6389 applies.
• CHRO: typically does not trigger §922(g)(8) federal ban because CHRO relationships do not qualify under the federal 'intimate partner' definition.

Custody and family law

• DVRO: triggers Family Code §3044 rebuttable presumption against custody for five years. Devastating for any parent with custody at stake.
• CHRO: no custody presumption. Has no automatic effect in a family law case.

Immigration consequences

• DVRO: not by itself a deportable offense, but the underlying conduct may form the basis of a criminal charge that is deportable as a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(E).
• CHRO: similar — not by itself deportable, but underlying conduct may matter.

Professional licensing

• Both: visible to licensing boards through CARPOS. Specific impact depends on the profession and the board's discretion.

Criminal charge for violation

• Both: violation of any term is a misdemeanor under Penal Code §273.6, with potential felony exposure for repeat violations.

Strategic implications for petitioners

If you are seeking protection, which order to file depends on the relationship and what you want from the order.

• Pending divorce or custody case. File DVRO to trigger §3044 presumption and exclusive use of residence under §6321.
• Neighbor or stranger harassment. File CHRO. DVRO not available.
• Concern about firearms. DVRO provides automatic surrender; CHRO requires specific request and findings.
• Concern about employment leverage. CHRO leaves a smaller footprint in background checks than DVRO does in family records.
• Workplace harassment by a coworker. Employer files Workplace Violence RO (CCP §527.8); individual files CHRO.

Strategic implications for respondents

If you are facing an order, the type matters for your defense strategy.

• DVRO defense requires preparation for the §3044 custody presumption if you have children with the petitioner. Bring family law counsel into the case early.
• DVRO defense requires immediate firearms surrender even before the hearing. Document the surrender and bring proof to court.
• CHRO defense has a higher burden of proof working in your favor. The petitioner must prove their case by clear and convincing evidence, which is harder than preponderance.
• CHRO defense often involves First Amendment arguments. If the alleged conduct is protected speech or petitioning activity, the order can be defeated on constitutional grounds under Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission and related authority.
• DVRO defense often coordinates with related criminal defense if charges have been filed for the underlying conduct.

Frequently asked questions

Can the same person file both a DVRO and a CHRO?

Not on the same conduct. The court will direct the petitioner to the proper statute based on the relationship. If the relationship qualifies for DVRO, the petitioner must use that track.

Which order is easier to defeat?

CHROs are statistically harder for petitioners to win because of the clear and convincing evidence standard. DVROs are issued more readily because the preponderance standard is lower. From a respondent's perspective, CHROs are slightly easier to defeat all else equal.

Can a CHRO be converted to a DVRO?

Not directly. If circumstances change and the relationship now qualifies for DVRO, the petitioner files a new DVRO petition. The earlier CHRO can run alongside or be dismissed.

Do the same exhibits work for both types of orders?

Yes. Texts, emails, photos, videos, witness statements, police reports, and other documentary evidence work in both contexts. The legal arguments built around the evidence differ because the statutes differ.

Do both orders show up on a background check?

Both are entered in the California Restraining and Protective Order System (CARPOS), which is searched by law enforcement and certain employers. Standard pre-employment background checks vary on whether they include civil court records.

Can I get attorney's fees if I win?

Both statutes allow discretionary fee shifting to the prevailing party. Family Code §6344 for DVRO. CCP §527.6(s) for CHRO. Awards are not common but are available in appropriate cases.